Bedtime For Bonzo Film Festival


"Payback isn't usually flattering but when the facts are in writing it's difficult to hide from the truth. Jim Webb, Democrats candidate to unseat Republican George Allen in Virginia, has gotten his October surprise.
Webb's views of immigration, like many of his positions on questions of domestic policy, are unformed. It's not hard to imagine where his populism and ethnic allegiance would lead him, though. One thing that all economists agree on--those who favor the present influx of immigrants and those who don't--is that mass immigration lowers the wages of unskilled, uneducated native-born workers; "my people," as Webb calls them. A quick way to raise those wages would be to cut off the future flow of unskilled immigration. Yet this step toward "economic fairness" is not available to a Democratic candidate these days (or to many Republicans either).
In a brief and uncomfortable stump speech, Webb told the Hispanic crowd that he was against a guest-worker program. "We must first define our borders," he said. "And then we must ensure corporate responsibility, because a lot of this is going to come down to the employers."
The crowd seemed puzzled. Later reporters asked Webb to clarify his position. With Tejada next to him, he said he favored some path to legalization and citizenship for the illegals already here. Tejada nodded solemnly. But what about the future? a reporter asked. Would Webb favor tough economic sanctions against businesses that employ illegals, as a way of drying up the tide of immigrants?
"Yes," Webb said, "there needs to be corporate enforcement. We've had no corporate enforcement for six years! There's got to be employer sanctions, otherwise you're going to keep wages down. We have got to get a handle on this."
Tejada glanced at the ceiling. Punishing employers who hire illegals is not, needless to say, part of the game plan for the community, or for Arlington Democrats.
After Webb was gone, I asked Tejada about this. "Does Webb really want to punish employers who hire members of the community?"
"The devil is in the details," Tejada said. "Jim is a very complex thinker. We as a country need to have a long debate about these things."
"But wouldn't punishing employers reduce the opportunities for workers coming across the border?" I said.
"We will continue to work with Jim on this," Tejada said. "We will consult with him, advise him going forward. Educate him."
That same mood is spurring the labor movement in Virginia where Democrat James Webb, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, is running hard to oust GOP Sen. George Allen. Webb opposed the Iraq war before it began and has been hammering Allen for his rubber-stamp backing of Bush’s failed war and occupation.
Doris Crouse-Mays, secretary-treasurer of the Virginia AFL-CIO, said the 190,000 union members in Virginia played a huge role in electing Democrat Tim Kaine as governor in 2005. The labor movement fielded 1,700 volunteers who knocked on 40,000 doors and distributed 415,000 get-out-the-vote leaflets to help elect Kaine.
Now, she said, union members are working just as hard to elect Webb. “The loss of jobs and the economy, when people are working longer hours, holding down multiple jobs just to stay alive, its time for a change,” she told the World by phone from her Richmond office.
“The minimum wage hasn’t been raised for 10 years,” she said. “Jim Webb has already said he will support an increase in the federal minimum wage. Sen. Allen voted against a minimum wage increase but he voted to raise his own salary. A rising tide is not floating all boats.”
Joe Szakos, executive director of the Virginia Organizing Project, said his group does not endorse candidates yet is mobilizing for a big vote Nov 7. “We point out the obvious: Senator Allen opposes a minimum wage increase. Jim Webb supports an increase,” he said. "
"Cut and Run Democrat John Murtha, also of Penna, is under attack by a great Republican candidate, Diana Irey. I tried for months to get a poll of this race and there was nothing. Then last week the Pittsburgh Tribune released a poll of only 400 people, probably from their offices, that had Murtha up by double digits. But the paper refused to list who they polled, from where and from what party. The poll even had Irey losing in her hometown where she is well liked and very popular.More analysis from the Red State
The Irey campaign has called the poll wrong and proved that their internal polling show the race a dead heat."
"What is especially sad about that group of 4-6 people was their attitude and lack of respect for freedom of speech. They actually believed that we should be made to leave, even though we had a permit and their group did not. Thy repeatedly whined to the police that the protestors were too loud, that we should go home and respect the event, and that we should be kept to one street corner like they were."and let's not forget this LIE:
"They actually asked the police numerous times to "speak for the majority (yeah, 6 to 300 is a majority to some people) and turn on the tear gas to shut us up."And now a fact or two. The only thing we asked the police was where did they want us to stand.
"I believe that Jim Webb will make a great U.S. Senator from Virginia.UrShalm Blog, Lebanon
Jim is running against George Felix Allen, a self-declared friend of the Israeli fascist far-right and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s neo-colonial wars in the Middle-East and South Asia.
You can make your voice heard in Washington by supporting Jim’s campaign: even a modest donation can help make a difference."
"This has been an election year in which Blacks have had to listen to allegations about which U.S. Senate candidate is a racist, who said the n-word, and so forth. It is sad that when they talk about Black people, it’s only in the context of these trivialities and not about the issues that affect the everyday lives of Black folks.
There are myriad issues that should be dominating conversations—how to ensure that our children grow up in safe, drug free and crime free neighborhoods; how to guarantee an equal playing field for our small businesses when it comes to getting government contracts; how to change the schools in our neighborhoods so they can all pass benchmarks; how to fight the HIV/AIDS ravage of our community; and how to help single parents discontinue the cycle of poverty that governs their lives.
History has shown us that when we are out of sight, we are out of mind. When the elections are over, you just might be out of mind. And if only the campaign was dominated with real issues, at least you would know that you said your piece before you were out of mind.
It was refreshing to learn that state Sen. Benjamin Lambert III had stepped out of the box and was thinking for himself instead of letting his political affiliation think for him. Regardless of what you think, what he did was gigantic because the Democratic Party has always had a noose around Black folks’ necks.
Bishop Gerald O. Glenn of Chesterfield County also spoke out against race baiting, and this newspaper, always an independent thinker, is speaking out too.
We can’t live in the past forever, we must build new bridges and our first step across the bridge is to endorse Sen. George Allen, who is running for re-election. The past allows our slave masters to always tell us how to vote, and this newspaper is doing its part in breaking away from the slave shackles.
Sen. Allen’s record with the Black community may have started out blotchy, but we feel that he has learned the most about what is important to the Black community. We don’t have to justify our endorsement, but we want to tell our readers that a new breeze is blowing and you can either join it or stay shackled in the past."
by TD of The Right Track
As I see it, the main problem with the Income Tax is that it is virtually impossible to enforce completely and fairly. Compliance with the Income Tax depends on taxpayer truthfulness, which generally is motivated either by a) good character, or b) fear of an IRS audit. With the FairTax, the tax is collected when the money is spent, from everyone, with greatly reduced opportunities for non-compliance by the public.
For instance, what about the criminal element in our country? Have you ever heard of the Mafia? Or the drug dealer? Do you think that these people report 100% of their income? Of course not! They get out of paying a huge percentage of their actual tax bill by the simple expedient of not reporting all of their income. But these same individuals still have to pay utility bills, purchase prescription drugs, visit doctors, and buy food. And if they believe in the "high life" of new cars, fancy clothes and jewelry, and new homes, they're going to pay more than "Joe Six-pack" who chooses to drive a used car, or purchase a home that's not brand new.
And it's not just individuals who are managing to avoid paying taxes these days. Everyone in America has heard of the rush to move American companies "offshore", whether in whole or in part. Think about it -- have you ever seen an American-flagged commercial vessel? Oh sure, we've got our warships, but what about commercial boats that carry cargo or cruise passengers? Most of these are flying the flag of Liberia or Panama -- low-tax nations.
In the mid-1950s, about 33% of all income taxes collected were paid by American corporations. Today that number is down to approximately 10%. From "The FairTax Book" by Boortz and Linder:
"That plunge is a major factor in our recent soaring deficits. Indeed, international corporations are essentially "voluntary" taxpayers today, paying only that amount in taxes that they believe will avoid attracting embarrassing news coverage. These corporations believe that our draconian tax structures make their actions necessary. The OFCs [offshore financial centers, or banks - TD] make their plans feasible" [Emphasis added - TD]
Boortz and Linder make the point that if we eliminated all taxes on capital and labor, (which the FairTax does), the United States would become the world's tax haven.
We have the most stable economy, the most liquid and trusted markets, and the highest rates of labor productivity in the world -- and the trillions of dollars in those OFCs would flow back home to the United States for the very reason they found themselves offshore to start with.
And we're not just talking about American businesses coming home, we're talking about wooing corporations based in other countries into America. Think of the economic benefits! More productivity, lower unemployment, higher wages, and all occurring within a tax system that allows you at least partly to choose whether to pay taxes! Buy it new, pay a tax, buy it used and don't!
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.
by Jonathan Garner of Publius Rendezvous
It has been interesting lately to observe just what the critics of the Fair Tax have to say. Lately, much of what has been said has centered around percentages. Clever as it may be to confuse people with cleverly worded assertions that tend to fool the average American when it comes to these issues. If anyone in the audience is similar to me, it takes focused attention lest my eyes glaze over at the thought of following someone's lessons involving percentages, statistics and numbers in general.
Succinctly, what has been asserted that I have seen generally resembles something such as this:
Remember, even the proponents admit they'd need a 23 percent tax rate to fund the current size of the federal government. However, they are starting out their new "fair" tax system with highly deceptive language.
H.R. 25, Section 101(b)(1) states "FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service." Note the phrase "of the gross payment."
Here's how it works: You buy a candy bar for a total price, including tax, of $1.30. One dollar of that price pays for the candy bar; $.30 goes to the federal government.
One dollar purchase + $.30 in tax sounds like 30 percent to you and me (and to every state that currently has a sales tax). But the "FairTaxers" don't calculate it that way. They say: $1.30 total price. $.30 = 23 percent of $1.30, therefore the tax is 23 percent.
Many critics have pointed out that this is a deceptive way to calculate a sales tax. AFT rebuts the critics by saying (we paraphrase for simplicity), "If you made $1.30 in income and paid $.30 of it in tax, you'd call it a 23 percent tax rate." The 23 percent figure is what AFT refers to as the "tax inclusive" rate.
But a sales tax is not an income tax, and when we see national sales tax advocates and uncritical journalists promoting the 23 percent figure without giving the underlying explanation, we can only think that some very thick wool is being pulled over people's eyes.
But, as we shall see, there is yet again another major study that has been conducted that definitively illustrates the merit of the Fair Tax. As has been reported by The Fair Tax Blog, Boston University Economics Professor Laurence Kotlikoff's much-anticipated study of the necessary revenue-neutral rate for the FairTax has been published and released. Terry and I will refrain from reproducing the entire study, but peruse through the abstract below to see just how much the supporters already know!
As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.
Bill Gale (2005) and the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) suggest that the effective (tax inclusive) tax rate needed to implement H.R. 25 is far higher than the proposed 23% rate. This study, which builds on Gale's (2005) analysis, shows that a 23% rate is eminently feasible and suggests why Gale and the Tax Panel reached the opposite conclusion.
This paper begins by projecting the FairTax's 2007 tax base net of its rebate. Next it calculates the tax rate needed to maintain the real levels of federal and state spending under the FairTax. It then determines if an effective rate of 23% would be sufficient to fund 2007 estimated spending or if not, the amount by which non-Social Security federal expenditures would need to be reduced. Finally, it shows that the FairTax imposes no additional real fiscal burdens on state and local government, notwithstanding the requirement that such governments pay the FairTax when they purchase goods and services.
Implementing the FairTax rate of 23% would produce $2,586 billion in federal tax revenues which is $358 billion more than the $2,228 billion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals. Adjusting the base for the prebate and the administrative credit paid to businesses and states for collecting the tax results in a net tax base of $9,355 billion. In 2007, spending at current levels is projected to be $3,285 billion. Revenues from the FairTax at a 23% tax rate, plus other federal revenues, are estimated to yield $3,209 billion which is $76 billion less than current CBO spending projections for 2007. The $76 billion amounts to only 2.73% of non-Social Security spending ($2,177 - $2,101). This is a remarkably small adjustment when set against the more than 30% rise in the real value of these expenditures since 2000.
Ensuring real revenue neutrality at the federal level, given the net base of $9,355 billion, implies a rate of 23.82% on a tax-inclusive basis and 31.27% on a tax-exclusive basis. These and other calculations presented here ignore a) general equilibrium feedback (supply-side and demand-side) effects that could significantly raise the FairTax base (see, for example, Kotlikoff and Jokisch, 2005), b) the possibility that tax evasion would exceed the considerable amount automatically incorporated here via the use of NIPA data, which undercount consumption expenditures due to evasion under the current tax system, and c) the roughly $1 trillion real capital gain the federal government would secure on its outstanding nominal debt, were consumer prices to rise by the full amount of the FairTax.
The FairTax redistributes real purchasing power from state and local governments to their state and local income-tax taxpayers. It does so by reducing factor prices relative to consumer prices and, thereby, reducing the real value (measured at consumer prices) of state and local income tax payments, which are assessed on factor incomes (namely, factor supplies times factor prices).
Gale (2005) and the Tax Panel (2005) recognized this loss in real state and local government revenues in claiming that these governments need to be compensated for having to pay the FairTax. But what they apparently missed is that this loss to these governments is exactly offset by a gain to their taxpayers.
Were state and local governments to maintain their real income tax collections - the assumption made here - by increasing their tax rates appropriately, their taxpayers' real tax burdens would remain unchanged and there would be no need for the federal government to compensate state and local governments for having to pay the FairTax on their purchases. The second is that H.R. 25 does not preclude state and local governments from levying their sales taxes on the FairTax-inclusive price of consumer goods and services. This produces significantly more revenue compared to levying their sales taxes on producer prices.
Moreover, Gale (2005) and the Tax Panel (2005) arrived at a higher tax rate because they did not estimate the FairTax rate, but instead estimated a sales tax of their own design which had a substantially narrower base.
The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.